couchdb-dev mailing list archives

On 6 Aug 2009, at 21:01, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:04:34PM +0100, Jason Davies wrote:
>> The other good thing about storing historical
>> versions as attachments is that they would get replicated.
>> Currently we
>> don't replicate old MVCC versions, this would have to change as
>> well as
>> preventing them from being compacted as you say.
>
> However, we do replicate old MVCC versions if they are conflicting,
> and we
> do keep them through compaction.
>
> Perhaps "conflicting" and "historical" could be treated in roughly
> the same
> way?
>
> You resolve conflicts by deleting the conflicting rev(s). This could
> be done
> for deleting historical versions too.
Do we want deletions of historical versions to be replicated too? For
example, if I "permanently delete" a bunch of old versions on my local
machine, and then replicate to my master server, should the master
server also delete these old versions? This would be analagous to
deleting conflicting revs. I can see that in some cases this may not
be desired e.g. if someone is simply trying to free up space, and they
would prefer the master server to preserve all revisions.
Thanks,
--
Jason Davies
www.jasondavies.com